For example they spent blood and treasure in Vietnam to prevent the spread of Socialism into SE Asia.

The US was never in danger but SE Asia was. They could have simply let SE Asia fall.

There's nothing selfless about that! U.S. policymakers spent other people's blood and treasure in order to achieve that result for their own cronies in the military-industrial complex. It's not like they personally had to write cheques or enlist.

Well, you are splitting hairs, by differentiating the policymakers (politicians - Kennedy and Johnson) from the people. I am talking about the US nation. A nation is a collective of many people. The US did not benefit from going to war in SE Asia but SE Asia (apart from Indo-China) was saved from Communism.

This collectivist approach is one of the reasons that your analyses so often miss the mark. Motivations, goals, and actions ultimately only exist at the individual level. That's not splitting hairs, it's a fundamental: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meth ... vidualism/

In this case, you can't use your approach. That's because the US is a democracy. Kennedy and Johnson were the ones who escalated US involvement in Vietnam. They were elected.

They had to take into account the wishes of the American people. Somewhere in the hearts of most Americans at that time, they were willing to make a sacrifice for what they perceived to be the good of the world - defeat Socialism/Communism.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

... Kennedy Inaugural address 1961.

America is an idealistic nation. That is what is admirable about America. If a Singaporean politician made a speech like that, he will lose the next election. Nobody here wants to bear any burden and support any friend to achieve the success of liberty.

We rather make money and get rich. Isn't that how Trump thinks with his "America first"?

...............................................................................
Also, I don't see how Kennedy would have benefited by creating a war so as to give business to the arms manufacturers. He was already rich.

The US did not benefit from going to war in SE Asia but SE Asia (apart from Indo-China) was saved from Communism.

I suppose that you would have loved China being also "saved" from Communism, in the American way. But are you sure that a "saved" China would have achieved as much, in as little time, as Communist China has done? If you compare China with India - which had a significant head start over China - you must recognize that communist China achieved a lot more than non-communist India.

Interesting topic you brought up. I once asked Francis Fukuyama, "Why is it that democratic India is not doing as well as authoritarian China?"

But before I get into that, let me make a comparison between India and China.

Both India and China were Socialist in their early days. Nehru was a Fabian Socialist. The difference is not their economic ideology. India was and still is a democracy while China is a dictatorship.

So both economies did not do well initially because they were stifled with Socialist ideas. But China's did much worse. Mao's Great Leap Forward, involving forced collectivisation, resulted in famine that killed 60 million Chinese. This did not happen in India because it was a democracy.

No government can get elected when its people are starving. Mao was a dictator and so could impose unpopular measures like collectivization of farms. This did not work. So the idea that Communism caused China to do better than capitalist India is false. India from the 1950s to the 1980s were implementing Socialist ideas albeit democratically. Thus it was unable to compel collectivisation.

After Mao died, Deng took over and implemented capitalist reforms. The economy took off. It is doing better now because being a dictatorship has its advantages. For example, India tried to make its retail industry more competitive by allowing big retailers into the market. But massive protests from ma and pop shops made this impossible.

A dictatorship is a high reward high risk political system. It can implement unpopular policies. If the policies are wrong as were Mao's collectivization attempt, disaster strikes. If the policies are correct, then prosperity ensues without hindrance.

A democracy like India will not produce disasters like China's famine but India is also incapable of producing rapid growth like China. India is thus low risk but low return as they say in finance.

The US did not benefit from going to war in SE Asia but SE Asia (apart from Indo-China) was saved from Communism.

I suppose that you would have loved China being also "saved" from Communism, in the American way. But are you sure that a "saved" China would have achieved as much, in as little time, as Communist China has done? If you compare China with India - which had a significant head start over China - you must recognize that communist China achieved a lot more than non-communist India.

Interesting topic you brought up. I once asked Francis Fukuyama, "Why is it that democratic India is not doing as well as authoritarian China?"

But before I get into that, let me make a comparison between India and China.

Both India and China were Socialist in their early days. Nehru was a Fabian Socialist. The difference is not their economic ideology. India was and still is a democracy while China is a dictatorship.

So both economies did not do well initially because they were stifled with Socialist ideas. But China's did much worse. Mao's Great Leap Forward, involving forced collectivisation, resulted in famine that killed 60 million Chinese. This did not happen in India because it was a democracy.

No government can get elected when its people are starving. Mao was a dictator and so could impose unpopular measures like collectivization of farms. This did not work. So the idea that Communism caused China to do better than capitalist India is false. India from the 1950s to the 1980s were implementing Socialist ideas albeit democratically. Thus it was unable to compel collectivisation.

After Mao died, Deng took over and implemented capitalist reforms. The economy took off. It is doing better now because being a dictatorship has its advantages. For example, India tried to make its retail industry more competitive by allowing big retailers into the market. But massive protests from ma and pop shops made this impossible.

A dictatorship is a high reward high risk political system. It can implement unpopular policies. If the policies are wrong as were Mao's collectivization attempt, disaster strikes. If the policies are correct, then prosperity ensues without hindrance.

A democracy like India will not produce disasters like China's famine but India is also incapable of producing rapid growth like China. India is thus low risk but low return as they say in finance.

In other words, if India wants to become more prosperous it will have to become a dictatorship... You do come to the most interesting conclusions!...

The US did not benefit from going to war in SE Asia but SE Asia (apart from Indo-China) was saved from Communism.

I suppose that you would have loved China being also "saved" from Communism, in the American way. But are you sure that a "saved" China would have achieved as much, in as little time, as Communist China has done? If you compare China with India - which had a significant head start over China - you must recognize that communist China achieved a lot more than non-communist India.

Interesting topic you brought up. I once asked Francis Fukuyama, "Why is it that democratic India is not doing as well as authoritarian China?"

But before I get into that, let me make a comparison between India and China.

Both India and China were Socialist in their early days. Nehru was a Fabian Socialist. The difference is not their economic ideology. India was and still is a democracy while China is a dictatorship.

So both economies did not do well initially because they were stifled with Socialist ideas. But China's did much worse. Mao's Great Leap Forward, involving forced collectivisation, resulted in famine that killed 60 million Chinese. This did not happen in India because it was a democracy.

No government can get elected when its people are starving. Mao was a dictator and so could impose unpopular measures like collectivization of farms. This did not work. So the idea that Communism caused China to do better than capitalist India is false. India from the 1950s to the 1980s were implementing Socialist ideas albeit democratically. Thus it was unable to compel collectivisation.

After Mao died, Deng took over and implemented capitalist reforms. The economy took off. It is doing better now because being a dictatorship has its advantages. For example, India tried to make its retail industry more competitive by allowing big retailers into the market. But massive protests from ma and pop shops made this impossible.

A dictatorship is a high reward high risk political system. It can implement unpopular policies. If the policies are wrong as were Mao's collectivization attempt, disaster strikes. If the policies are correct, then prosperity ensues without hindrance.

A democracy like India will not produce disasters like China's famine but India is also incapable of producing rapid growth like China. India is thus low risk but low return as they say in finance.

In other words, if India wants to become more prosperous it will have to become a dictatorship... You do come to the most interesting conclusions!...

China's current system is Fascist: civil rights but virtually no human rights.

India since independence has a flawed democracy: elections but with a lot of thuggery (pun partly intended) which distorts its transparency and the integrity of the results. Business there is utterly corrupt.

I don't know if India will ever be able to shed its problems with extreme classism and racism. Until it does, Canada will keep getting very high quality immigrants out of it!

Spengler once said that the Chinese will someday want more out of their system than shopping, I agree, but I must admit that I expected more from that yearning by now.

China is a test for the world's democracies:

- many, such as Cass, want us to give up on human rights in order to compete with China; that is a mistake: China is not economically successful because of its authoritarianism but in spite of it.

- Sertorio represents those who will throw out human rights just to undermine America.

Dictatorships can always fake it for an audience in short bursts and few care to look behind the curtain.

- Sertorio represents those who will throw out human rights just to undermine America.

Brilliantly reasoned... Nothing like a lawyer to miss the essence of any issue and to draw the wrong conclusions... I hope your reasoning and arguments are beter in court...

He didn't draw the wrong conclusion. You've repeatedly expressed indifference towards human rights, praising all sorts of loathsome regimes provided that they oppose the U.S. geopolitically.

I am not indifferent to human rights. I only say that human rights must be defended by those who need them upheld. Foreigners, and in the first place Americans, are not entitled, are not interested and are not capable of defending other peoples' human rights. In matter of fact they usually achieve the opposite.

The US did not benefit from going to war in SE Asia but SE Asia (apart from Indo-China) was saved from Communism.

I suppose that you would have loved China being also "saved" from Communism, in the American way. But are you sure that a "saved" China would have achieved as much, in as little time, as Communist China has done? If you compare China with India - which had a significant head start over China - you must recognize that communist China achieved a lot more than non-communist India.

Interesting topic you brought up. I once asked Francis Fukuyama, "Why is it that democratic India is not doing as well as authoritarian China?"

But before I get into that, let me make a comparison between India and China.

Both India and China were Socialist in their early days. Nehru was a Fabian Socialist. The difference is not their economic ideology. India was and still is a democracy while China is a dictatorship.

So both economies did not do well initially because they were stifled with Socialist ideas. But China's did much worse. Mao's Great Leap Forward, involving forced collectivisation, resulted in famine that killed 60 million Chinese. This did not happen in India because it was a democracy.

No government can get elected when its people are starving. Mao was a dictator and so could impose unpopular measures like collectivization of farms. This did not work. So the idea that Communism caused China to do better than capitalist India is false. India from the 1950s to the 1980s were implementing Socialist ideas albeit democratically. Thus it was unable to compel collectivisation.

After Mao died, Deng took over and implemented capitalist reforms. The economy took off. It is doing better now because being a dictatorship has its advantages. For example, India tried to make its retail industry more competitive by allowing big retailers into the market. But massive protests from ma and pop shops made this impossible.

A dictatorship is a high reward high risk political system. It can implement unpopular policies. If the policies are wrong as were Mao's collectivization attempt, disaster strikes. If the policies are correct, then prosperity ensues without hindrance.

A democracy like India will not produce disasters like China's famine but India is also incapable of producing rapid growth like China. India is thus low risk but low return as they say in finance.

In other words, if India wants to become more prosperous it will have to become a dictatorship... You do come to the most interesting conclusions!...

My conclusion is more nuanced than you are capable of seeing.

You could also add that if India wants to avoid disastrous mistakes like Mao's Great Leap Forward, it has better to remain a democracy.

Remember, the key point I was trying to make is that dictatorships are high risk high reward systems of government. A dictator can make unpopular decisions. If his decision is wrong, like Mao's Socialist policy, then disaster strikes. There is no one to stop him. On the other hand, if a dictator makes the right decision, there is no one to stop him too. So prosperity and success ensues.

Kennedy and Johnson could not have done that if the people had been selfish. There is something admirable in the American spirit that they want to make this a better world and are prepared to make some sacrifices.

Kennedy kept US involvement in Vietnam very low key. Kennedy sent "advisors" over there to help train up the ARVN (South Vietnamese army) but was leery about sending more than a small number of soldier-professionals to bolster the ARVN. Kennedy, who was no cowboy politician, apparently comprehended the futile imbriago the United States could get itself into on mainland Asia. Prudence must have urged Kennedy against escalating the conflict.

It was Johnson who escalated the conflict and by so doing divided the American nation. Significantly, conscripted youths were sent over for the first time to make up the numbers. I am puzzled to this day wondering what prompted Johnson to do what Kennedy dared not do. Possibly he may have been worried that his Republican cold warrior opponents might accuse the Democrats of having become too soft on Communism and saw Vietnam as the opportunity to do some Commie bashing abroad to demonstrate otherwise. I am sure that Johnson's own re-election prospects for 1968 would have been foremost in his mind and that altruism towards south east Asia had nothing to do with his decision.

The ructions that opened up in American society because of that war (and pointedly because of conscription) did not heal even throughout the following decade; debilitating the United States as a global power; permitting the Soviet bloc to make the gains they did until the arrival of Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office (by which time the USSR had run out of puff anyway).